Is this a Firangi ?

[werecow]

IIRC firangi just means foreign, so a Chinese blade would qualify.

[Jim McDougall]

Indian sword terminology is challenging, at best.
If I have understood correctly, a sword with Hindu basket hilt and with a curved blade is termed 'kirach'. If it is with straight blade it is termed 'sukhela', in the Maratha counterpart of the straight blade but gauntlet hilt 'pata'.

If the Hindu basket hilt has a straight foreign blade, it call be deemed a firangi (=foreign blade, as noted), but it does not seem the firangi term is generally applied to curved bladed swords or patas.

In the north of course, the curved saber is termed tulwar, regardless of Indo-Persian hilt or Persian style (shamshir) hilt. In the native army in British service sabers are called tulwars even with three bar hilts.

As Mahratt notes, the alemani term was used in Deccan and southern regions where German mercenaries were active with of course curved sabers.

Three tulwars:
First, the familiar Indo-Persian hilt, Rajasthan
second, Persian type grip, Deccan, M1788 British Lt. Cav. blade
third, Native cavalry, 21st cavalry Frontier Force, by Mole.

In Indian parlance all termed tulwar, as far as I have known the firangi term is not applied with tulwars.

These are my interpretations, and I would be glad for any corrections or additions.

[werecow]

FWIW, according to a Bengali friend of mine, pata just means sword - like many of these collector's terms I suppose.

And I was under the impression that the term kirach referred more specifically to a slightly forward curved (but not recurved) sword, like this one:

[Rick]

Originally Posted by werecow

FWIW, according to a Bengali friend of mine, pata just means sword - like many of these collector's terms I suppose.

And I was under the impression that the term kirach referred more specifically to a slightly forward curved (but not recurved) sword, like this one:

Yes and some more than slightly forward curved.

[Jim McDougall]

Again, the terminologies in Indian swords are probably even more complex and convoluted than even most other ethnographic weapon forms, where in some cases it has been suggested that with many archipelago types a term can vary from village to village (obviously a bit exaggerated).

In Rawson, "The Indian Sword" (1969, p.90, n.89, p.46) "..."Kirach" is a common Hindustani term for a sword, but here it is taken to refer only to one with a blade which, being mainly straight, is slightly curved forward at the tip like a scythe blade. It is a Deccan weapon".
Elgood ("Hindu Arms & Ritual", 2004. p.252) notes that a Kirach in the Deccan the kirach "may have a slight forward inclination at the tip of the blade". It is defined as a heavy, straight thrusting sword.

On the same page, referring to the 'sukhela' (or dhup, or Hindu basket hilt or whatever), "...if, as often is the case, the blade is of foreign, that is European, origin, the sword is often referred to as 'phirangi' which means 'stranger'". However this apparent variation of the Hindu basket hilt seems to have a blade longer than usual so not exactly the same as the khanda or firangi. The sukhela/dhup is not clearly illustrated nor explained in either of these, but makes the point of the terminology dilemma.

From the examples of kirach I have seen, as Rick has noted, the blade seems 'forward' , that is, edge on the inside. But these kinds of blades, as recurved forms (and scythes as noted in description) are hacking type blades, not for thrusting.

To say study of Indian arms is challenging is an understatement.

[werecow]

That looks like a fun sword, Rick. Is that a T-section at the forte?

It looks mean. Almost like it's meant to slice bite-sized bits off of and maybe, uhm, "peel" the opponent. *shiver*

[Rick]

It's a great thrusting sword.
No T spine, but it is sharpened about 2/3 of that length, and the point is thickened.
Would this blade be considered a firangi?

[ausjulius]

Originally Posted by werecow

IIRC firangi just means foreign, so a Chinese blade would qualify.

no firangi are white men.. blonde haired blue eyed northern europeans.. as the original arabic and persian meaning denotes.
in thailand for example farang is not a nationality but a race. many italians would not be farangs but all swedish would be.
indians use of farangi means northern europeans as in its orignal arabic influenced context or "europeans" in general for the most part. in indian farangi is a white european person. a farangi blade is a blade from white european people.
farangi are "francs" i.e blonde, blue eyed tall people with white skin from europe- exotic barbarians.. the term predates arrival of european ships in india by a good while and arabs used it already in the 8th century.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by ausjulius

no firangi are white men.. blonde haired blue eyed northern europeans.. as the original arabic and persian meaning denotes.
in thailand for example farang is not a nationality but a race. many italians would not be farangs but all swedish would be.
indians use of farangi means northern europeans as in its orignal arabic influenced context or "europeans" in general for the most part. in indian farangi is a white european person. a farangi blade is a blade from white european people.
farangi are "francs" i.e blonde, blue eyed tall people with white skin from europe- exotic barbarians.. the term predates arrival of european ships in india by a good while and arabs used it already in the 8th century.

Ah, yeah, now that you've mentioned it, the "francs" connection rings a bell (and makes a lot of sense). Thanks for the correction! }|:o)

[Nihl]

I’m a bit late to this thread, so maybe this will work as a “soft revive” and get discussion going again. The main info I want to contribute here I’ve actually already spoken about in a previous thread, but I’ll quote it here for convenience:

In my opinion, while "firangi" is a legitimate term, it's a bit too vague to use these days when talking about indian swords. Sure, there are plenty of swords with "firangi blades" out there, but since we now know that copies of European blades were paired with hilts just as often as authentic ones, it makes no sense to rely on "firangi" as a sword type when the swords described, from a glance, have a 50/50 chance of actually being accurate to the term. Meanwhile, the term "dhop" makes no such distinction, and instead is defined (from what I can tell) as just a basket-hilted sword with some kind of long and often - but not always - fullered blade. The term "asa shamshir" indeed is more northern in origin, but I would say it's an accurate term to describe any straight-bladed, basket-hilted "firangi". In my mind, firangi is a good way of marking an indian sword as having a trade blade (i.e. saying "this is a firangi-bladed pata, tulwar, etc"), when used as a descriptor/shorthand that would indeed signify that that sword has a blade of european origin, but I think it is too vague of a term to use as a standalone type of sword.

The term “dhop” that I reference was discussed in the thread linked above as well, but in short Dhop is basically the marathi term for a basket-hilted cavalry sword. I regard it to be the most authentic and accurate term for describing these swords (including the one posted at the beginning of this thread by drac), as, like I stated in my quote, it does not make any prescriptive judgements about the actual origin of the blade, which experts (or “experts”) can argue over for days without coming to an actual conclusion.

In regards to using “Firangi” as the standalone term for a sword - It’s worth noting that, historically, most Indian people cared more about the blade of their swords than the hilt. This makes sense from a utilitarian perspective as of course having a good, strong blade, will always be more useful than a super fancy hilt in a life-or-death scenario on the battlefield. As such, it would make sense historically that, when asked, Indian people would pretty much exclusively describe their swords by the blade - that the blade is firangi, sukhela, sirohi, etc.. I could be mistaken, but I believe most of these accounts never mention any natives taking time to describe the hilts of their weapons, and I think this is the reason why.

The reason why I’d consider this “hilt blindness” to be problematic for collecting is because it only tells half the story. Contrary to what was the norm in the 19th century, hilts in precolonial India often had explicit regional variations and styles. Artisans in one state/empire would largely only make a single type of hilt, and there were no real "generic" styles of tulwar or basket hilts being made. Of course, commoners most often only had access to undecorated, utilitarian versions of these hilts, but even then most styles have enough physical changes from one another that it's still possible to tell them apart (namely in terms of the styles of pommel, langet, and quillon terminals). As such, while it’s hard work, discerning what type of hilt a pre-19th century indian sword has can greatly reduce the geographical range it can be attributed to.

Of course there is always the issue of trade, but imo this is a whataboutism, and is neither helpful nor meaningfully contributes much to the research of these matters. Is it possible a sikh nihang at one point in time wielded a 17th century, thanjavur-style pata in battle? Sure! In fact, I know I’ve even seen them in pictures of Sikh arms collections on sites like Instagram, but this is all due to trade and is NOT related to where an item was made or “came from” (which matters when trying to figure out what its original name was).

So, back to hilt blindness and the term firangi. What is a firangi sword? A sword with a foreign blade, sure, but with what type of hilt? The term does not specify. What about a dhop? The term Dhop specifies a few things: that the blade is long, fullered, can be straight or curved, and is mounted to a basket hilt. IMO “firangi” is just a descriptor, something to be added on to a name to help further describe an item. Dhop, for reasons that are hopefully clear by now, is imo a proper name and a superior standalone term than firangi when used to describe a style of sword.

Put perhaps more concisely: Firangi only describes the form that a sword's blade might have, meanwhile Dhop is both more generic and more encompassing. It specifies the style of blade and hilt that the sword should have, without constricting either to an exact point of origin.

[Jim McDougall]

As noted, it makes sense that the emphasis on blades would be taken.
The type of blade is of course of great consequence with a sword, and the hilt is simply designed to carry out the function of the blade. The reason hilts are often referred to in describing certain ethnographic sword types is that they are commonly regarded as of local preference.

Clearly with Indian swords, in many cases the blade character determines the term used for the sword, such as kirach, tegha for example. G.N.Pant (1980) placed his focus on hilts and tried to establish regional classification for tulwars which of course had only marginal success. Tulwar hilts of a traditional form over several hundred years were often produced in one location and went to others where they were decorated in motif favored there in many cases. In many cases, as noted, the same basic traditional hilt form was produced but with variation on its elements such as most notably the pommel dish, quillons and the langet/chowk combination. The grip can also have certain variation.


Many of the terms for swords such as 'sirohi' refer to blades made in that city in Rajasthan. Many tulwar hilts are considered from Rajasthan, but many called by the name of a city in Rajasthan they are somehow associated with (as per Pant, 1980) such as Marawari; Udaipuri;

The 'khanda' which of course is initially regarded as Marathi from Deccan, and west India origins was diffused northward into Rajput regions where these were used by them as well as Sikhs. Post contact these were altered into what became known as the 'Hindu basket hilt', and as well known, often fitted with European blades, which seems the prime case with the use of the firangi term.

I once asked a Sikh if there was a way to distinguish a Sikh weapon...he wryly smiled and said, 'if a Sikh used it, then its a Sikh weapon".

We often see various weapon forms classified as Sikh, Rajput, Mughal, Hindu so here we have the cultural/religious denominator.

The bottom line is that usually, the native population seldom, if ever, refers to a weapon specifying any such classification by blade, hilt, religion, regional or otherwise.
They simply use the dialectic term for 'sword' at hand locally, or within the context of the group they are in.
In India, in northern regions the tulwar means sword, any type.
In Persia, shamshir has similar use, but typically means curved.

In "Armies of the Caliphs" (Kennedy), it is noted swords were often called by the place they were made by Muslims.

In studying the 'kaskara' of Sudan, I spent years trying to discover where the term came from. Apparently there, not a single native person had any idea of the term, let alone where it might have come from. When shown photos of a kaskara, people I spoke with immediately called it sa'if. One man, said they called it a 'cross'. Eventually, as usual, it turned out this was a loan word used by writers, later collectors to describe these broadswords.
Natives interviewed by Reed (1987) found that these broadswords were called 'Kasallawi' due to this was now where they were made (post 1950s).

I really dont think there is a universal way to classify ethnographic swords, and for the sake of discussion feasibility it makes most sense to use the term most commonly held rather than any attempt to correct or debate terms.
Surely a footnote or cross reference is most helpful.

[Nihl]

Jim, I hope my writing here doesn’t come off as overly aggressive, however to be quite honest your reply has made me rather irate.

I once asked a Sikh if there was a way to distinguish a Sikh weapon...he wryly smiled and said, 'if a Sikh used it, then its a Sikh weapon".

This is exactly why I wrote the following in my previous post:

Is it possible a sikh nihang at one point in time wielded a 17th century, thanjavur-style pata in battle? Sure! …but this is all due to trade and is NOT related to where an item was made or “came from”

The idea that the person who wields an item somehow contributes to how it should be classified is patently ridiculous. Are any of the swords in my collection, new or modern, “american swords” just because I, an american, own and wield them from time to time? Of course not! Of course ownership can contribute to the provenance of an item, but provenance alone should not be mistaken with place of creation, which IMO is a more valuable descriptor.

They simply use the dialectic term for 'sword' at hand locally, or within the context of the group they are in.
In India, in northern regions the tulwar means sword, any type.
In Persia, shamshir has similar use, but typically means curved.

This is a fundamentally unhelpful, ineffectual notion that I can’t help but notice is only ever brought up, without exception, when someone on this forum is unwilling to change the terminology that they use regarding weapons. It has not and will never be a valid argument, nor will it ever contribute anything to the study of arms. Saying “who cares, words are silly, let's just get drunk!” is a statement that is equally meaningless and silly yet functionally interchangeable with the previous one. Yes, basic “sword words” exist, but believe it or not there are not only more specific words that exist to differentiate items, but also things such as adjectives, prefixes, and suffixes that can be attached to words to additionally specify their meanings.

No progress will ever be made in our field if people keep holding on to this idea, and I really wish people would stop saying it. Even linguistically it’s rather daft, as plenty of languages have numerous words distinguishing knives from daggers, different types of swords and other arms from one another, etc. etc. (including both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages as relevant to this thread here). Words have meaning, and that meaning can change or even be outright replaced over time. It is only natural that in a field that at least attempts to be scientific some of our words will change over time too. Again, I only ever see this hand-waving of semantics whenever someone brings up the “revolutionary” concept of definitions changing, and as far as I can see it comes from fear and ignorance, and the complete opposite of willingness to learn.

Looking at a sword with a stereotypical tulwar-style hilt but a long, straight, fullered blade? Either describe it in full like I just did, or say it’s a tulwar with a firangi-style blade! However just calling it a “firangi” not only exclusively describes the blade, but also might be describing the blade wrongly if it turns out the blade isn’t from europe. Theoretically, in the future, if hilt origins are ever finally discerned, you could make the naming even more accurate by, for example, saying the sword has a “udaipuri-style hilt and a firangi-style blade”! Sure, it’s easier to just use the generic “sword word” and call it a tulwar, but I’d like to think that the longer, previously given description functions as the “scientific name” of sorts for the item.

At the end of the day, sure, to the average collector or dealer that just wants to put a name on their items, there will always be generic terms that exist to describe them. However for anyone that is actually curious and interested in the study of these things, I think more mileage will be had trying to be as descriptive as possible.

Once again, this isn’t intended as a direct attack at Jim, despite what it may or may not seem like, but rather an open letter of sorts that happened to be spurred by Jim’s response.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow Nihl! I'm glad your rancorous attack was not directed AT me (still tender from the gut punch though)....but glad I provided you a platform for your rant, which ironically is very much the same convention I have tried to advance for most of the 25 years I have written here.

What I wrote, I thought was being supportive of your interesting and well thought out perspective, including my Sikh anecdote mindful of exactly what you had said.
I will say that after over fifty years of studying arms and armor, I cannot say how many examples of mostly Victorian 'collectors terms' I have sought to place in proper detail, and working with many of the venerable authors now mostly gone, who also sought to 'correct' misnomers and curious colloquial terms for certain weapon forms.

On the European forum, we have been engaged in finding the origins of the 17th century campaign swords called 'walloon'; there have been debates on 'basket hilt' vs. 'claymore' and a book full of such 'classifications' .

In a current project, I found that the Spanish colonial hanger known popularly as the espada ancha, was actually termed in Alta California in that period, 'machete', and that the espada ancha (=Sp.broadsword) term actually referred to the full size swords used by the military at the time.
As most of the literature published to date on these hangers calls them espada anchas, it is hopeless to try to change this to 'machete' which in discussions brings forth an entirely different connotation.

Pant (1980) went through a number of notices of errors in previous works by Rawson and in the most notable case, Egerton (1885) who somehow transposed the term 'katar' to the transverse grip dagger actually termed 'jamadhar' ...and from then on, these familiar daggers became KATARS.
The was carried forth in virtually every published work including Indian arms since......and NOBODY has been able to change it. In most cases, this is noted in various writings, but mostly it is a matter of semantics in knowing which weapon was being discussed.

In many years of research with various authorities on Indian arms, we had great difficulty in tracing the chronological development of the katar, as when reading early period accounts, if the term katar was used, was it the earlier known version with regular hilt, or the jamadhar etc.

We have the curious 'Khyber knife' which somehow became termed the Salawar Yataghan in some sort of Hobson-Jobson .....it is not a knife, but a heavy short sword, and CERTAINLY not a yataghan.....yet in every circle today, these remain a Khyber knife. (actually 'sillawar' appears to be the local Afghan term, but who knows if universal in all tribal dialects there).

I could take the anecdotes and examples of all these, and probably compile them into a book, encyclopedia, perhaps even a movie (which would parallel Ben-Hur or such epic)...but the point is....
This particular dilemma/debate/conundrum has been an ongoing casus belli here for over the decades I have been here, and the contentious warfare has been brutal (just look at our situation here from what I intended as a helpful entry).
We have called this 'the name game' admittedly with spite, as it seems seldom to have achieved much.

As long as I can recall, I have advocated, do not be afraid to use as many words as it takes to describe a weapon, and its components. Collectors often want simple general terms for labels on displays, students of arms prefer qualified and detailed descriptions (in my opinion of course).

As I believe I have told you, I personally applaud your passion and serious approach to the study of arms, but as someone who has also followed your course for most of a lifetime, I can tell you, it is not an easy road. I can assure you the attitude you depict in your post of 'who cares' is hardly a description of my work, but despite your tone, I can appreciate what you are saying as a condition I have encountered for more years than you can imagine.

My best hope is that those of us who wish to seriously learn on and from the weapons we collect work together on reasonable solutions to better describing them, and a way to collectively cross reference terms as required.
In many cases the etymology and linguistic aspects provide colorful history to be added to these, and all the better in understanding them.

Best regards
Jim